The Church of Christ
I guess I can see when what I say strikes a nerve, because that's when Digger starts taking cheap-shots. So, I'll put up a post to answer the questions he raised in the comments on the last post.
In this case, though, these things are easy.
First of all, to assert that because of what I've said the only place I can be without hypocrisy is a "Roman Catholic church" means that either you read more into my posts than I said or you don't really understand Catholic theology all that well. Or both. Even if I said exactly what you apparently think I said, that still ignores the fact that it would not just be a "Roman Catholic" church that would satisfy these things. For instance, the other Catholic rites, like the Byzantine Rite Catholic church that Therese grew up in. Also, there is always the Greek Orthodox church which fulfills all these things. And the Russian Orthodox church. And a case could even be made for the Anglican church -- at least the old-school, high-church, Anglo-Catholics. Among others.
And one of those others is the Church of Christ.
Let me educate you on a bit of history.
This body started in the late 18th century with a couple of guys named Barton Stone and Thomas Campbell. Independent of each other, they started religious movements that were eventually to merge up. The focus of this movement is not really important to this conversation as the body was to eventually go in a much different direction, but there were two things that the original Stone and Campbell movements were to bring that were important. First, was a very sharp break with the Protestant world they had come out of, including a very strong urge to figure things out independent of the traditional Protestant authorities. Second, was an immensely strong focus on the Bible and determining what it actually taught.
Into this environment stepped Alexander Campbell -- son of Thomas -- who was one of the greatest theological minds America has ever produced. (Must have been his Scottish heritage, Therese :) ) . One of the things he brought to the table was the idea that Christians should try and do what the early church did. This theology came to be called "restorationalism" but that's really a bad term for what Campbell himself believed for various reasons. Suffice it to say, it brought something new into the picture: an idea of how to get the correct interpretation of things from scripture.
Over the centuries this group was to change a bit, but a lot of these fundamentals remained strong. Because it did not feel beholden to the Protestant world -- and it's members would NEVER self-identify as "Protestants" -- it could break free from a lot of this heresy. The Truth of the gospel taught by the Apostles is pretty apparent to see, one just needs eyes that look for it.
At any rate, this body -- the one I was raised in -- would disagree with all of these major points of Protestant faith Digger produced, and would agree whole-heartily with what I wrote the last few days. We do not believe in sola scriptura. We believe that, to be right, one must do what the early church did. That is single-source theology.
We absolutely fundamentally disagree on all levels with sola fide, as that is against the clear and unambiguous testimony of both scripture and tradition. Instead, we believe that one is saved by faith working through love. That action is necessary, that obedience is not optional, and that faith alone is dead. As part of this, we have always believed in a sacramental efficacy in both baptism and the Lord's Supper as the mechanisms by which Lord transmits grace to the members of His Body.
We have always taught, therefore, that because obedience is necessary for salvation, disobedience can cause one to fall from grace. Far from promising that once you are saved you are always saved, God clearly promises that those who turn from Him will never enter His rest.
We have always taught that church leadership and the church organizational model used are essential features of actually being "Church" and that there are different roles in the body. There are those selected by God for local spiritual leadership, and, to be right, the members must be in submission to them. We have always taught that clearly the charismatic gifts did not outlive the Apostles, so God isn't talking to you, so if you ignore what the Apostles clearly said in the name of "being led by the Spirit" you are a liar trying to justify clear error in a way that will brook no argument.
We have also always taught that God's Church is a visible body here on Earth. That salvation is not an invisible, personal, individualistic thing, but that there is a corporate expression of it. This is why protestants often make fun of members of the Church of Christ saying, "They think they're the only ones going to heaven." Which is not really quite true -- that's taking a complex topic and trying to make one single extraordinarily simple summary of it for the purpose of mocking it -- but is also natural. Because we DO teach that the body you are in makes a difference and that the Lord's Church has visible expression on Earth.
This is why, for instance, all my life I've been told by my parents and grandparents and all these other CoC members who I are deeply committed to this movement, that the Christian group closest to us, that agrees with us on every fundamental point, and that is clearly also a part of Christ's true Church and will be saved, is the Greek Orthodox church.
This is why nothing I've written on here would be in any way controversial among Churches of Christ. I take all these essays -- and a ton more that I have never posted here -- and shoot them all around the country. To my elders here in Albuquerque. To my Dad who is an elder of the Church 2 or 3 states over from here. To my uncle who is an elder a further state away from my Dad. To my brother who is working as a pulpit minister up in New England. That's why I preach these things at my local congregation all the time. The reaction is never scandal. These things aren't controversial. This is the standard belief system.
This is why Church of Christ theology has often been described as a "stripped-down version of Catholicism." Which is very fair. (To CoC members, that which was stripped out was what needed to be stripped out, of course, taking Catholic doctrine back to the more simple and pure version seen earlier on. Catholics would, of course, disagree.) It is what Therese and I, after having a pretty detailed discussion on Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua decided to call "little 'c' catholic" as opposed to "big 'C' Catholic" which would denote those Christians in communion with the Pope in Rome. In this nomenclature, a "little 'c' catholic" would be synonymous with being a "little 'o' orthodox".
If one put a big, bold line down the center of the Christian world, dividing it up based on these fundamental components of the gospel taught, on one side you would have the more catholic and orthodox traditions: the Catholic church, the Orthodox churches, some Anglican groups, etc. On the other would be the Protestants. In this conception, the Church of Christ would clearly be on the catholic side of the line.
As would early Christianity, the Bible, the Apostles, and Christ Himself. There is no other place the Church of Christ should ever be. As lies do not save, and those who teach a different gospel from the Apostles -- even an Angel from heaven -- is accursed and condemned.
None of this is to say that the Church of Christ is perfect in either belief or practice. There are a lot of things I have trouble with that I am working to change -- outgrowths of our basic belief system, and implications of it all (especially in the realm of leadership and authority and more general, all-encompassing, universal unity) -- and some of these things ARE a bit controversial at times. But none of that changes this fundamental gospel we preach.
Can I hold these things I've taught and be a member of this church without hypocrisy? You betcha. In fact, one could not be a member of this movement and NOT hold these things without severe cognitive dissonance.
In this case, though, these things are easy.
First of all, to assert that because of what I've said the only place I can be without hypocrisy is a "Roman Catholic church" means that either you read more into my posts than I said or you don't really understand Catholic theology all that well. Or both. Even if I said exactly what you apparently think I said, that still ignores the fact that it would not just be a "Roman Catholic" church that would satisfy these things. For instance, the other Catholic rites, like the Byzantine Rite Catholic church that Therese grew up in. Also, there is always the Greek Orthodox church which fulfills all these things. And the Russian Orthodox church. And a case could even be made for the Anglican church -- at least the old-school, high-church, Anglo-Catholics. Among others.
And one of those others is the Church of Christ.
Let me educate you on a bit of history.
This body started in the late 18th century with a couple of guys named Barton Stone and Thomas Campbell. Independent of each other, they started religious movements that were eventually to merge up. The focus of this movement is not really important to this conversation as the body was to eventually go in a much different direction, but there were two things that the original Stone and Campbell movements were to bring that were important. First, was a very sharp break with the Protestant world they had come out of, including a very strong urge to figure things out independent of the traditional Protestant authorities. Second, was an immensely strong focus on the Bible and determining what it actually taught.
Into this environment stepped Alexander Campbell -- son of Thomas -- who was one of the greatest theological minds America has ever produced. (Must have been his Scottish heritage, Therese :) ) . One of the things he brought to the table was the idea that Christians should try and do what the early church did. This theology came to be called "restorationalism" but that's really a bad term for what Campbell himself believed for various reasons. Suffice it to say, it brought something new into the picture: an idea of how to get the correct interpretation of things from scripture.
Over the centuries this group was to change a bit, but a lot of these fundamentals remained strong. Because it did not feel beholden to the Protestant world -- and it's members would NEVER self-identify as "Protestants" -- it could break free from a lot of this heresy. The Truth of the gospel taught by the Apostles is pretty apparent to see, one just needs eyes that look for it.
At any rate, this body -- the one I was raised in -- would disagree with all of these major points of Protestant faith Digger produced, and would agree whole-heartily with what I wrote the last few days. We do not believe in sola scriptura. We believe that, to be right, one must do what the early church did. That is single-source theology.
We absolutely fundamentally disagree on all levels with sola fide, as that is against the clear and unambiguous testimony of both scripture and tradition. Instead, we believe that one is saved by faith working through love. That action is necessary, that obedience is not optional, and that faith alone is dead. As part of this, we have always believed in a sacramental efficacy in both baptism and the Lord's Supper as the mechanisms by which Lord transmits grace to the members of His Body.
We have always taught, therefore, that because obedience is necessary for salvation, disobedience can cause one to fall from grace. Far from promising that once you are saved you are always saved, God clearly promises that those who turn from Him will never enter His rest.
We have always taught that church leadership and the church organizational model used are essential features of actually being "Church" and that there are different roles in the body. There are those selected by God for local spiritual leadership, and, to be right, the members must be in submission to them. We have always taught that clearly the charismatic gifts did not outlive the Apostles, so God isn't talking to you, so if you ignore what the Apostles clearly said in the name of "being led by the Spirit" you are a liar trying to justify clear error in a way that will brook no argument.
We have also always taught that God's Church is a visible body here on Earth. That salvation is not an invisible, personal, individualistic thing, but that there is a corporate expression of it. This is why protestants often make fun of members of the Church of Christ saying, "They think they're the only ones going to heaven." Which is not really quite true -- that's taking a complex topic and trying to make one single extraordinarily simple summary of it for the purpose of mocking it -- but is also natural. Because we DO teach that the body you are in makes a difference and that the Lord's Church has visible expression on Earth.
This is why, for instance, all my life I've been told by my parents and grandparents and all these other CoC members who I are deeply committed to this movement, that the Christian group closest to us, that agrees with us on every fundamental point, and that is clearly also a part of Christ's true Church and will be saved, is the Greek Orthodox church.
This is why nothing I've written on here would be in any way controversial among Churches of Christ. I take all these essays -- and a ton more that I have never posted here -- and shoot them all around the country. To my elders here in Albuquerque. To my Dad who is an elder of the Church 2 or 3 states over from here. To my uncle who is an elder a further state away from my Dad. To my brother who is working as a pulpit minister up in New England. That's why I preach these things at my local congregation all the time. The reaction is never scandal. These things aren't controversial. This is the standard belief system.
This is why Church of Christ theology has often been described as a "stripped-down version of Catholicism." Which is very fair. (To CoC members, that which was stripped out was what needed to be stripped out, of course, taking Catholic doctrine back to the more simple and pure version seen earlier on. Catholics would, of course, disagree.) It is what Therese and I, after having a pretty detailed discussion on Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua decided to call "little 'c' catholic" as opposed to "big 'C' Catholic" which would denote those Christians in communion with the Pope in Rome. In this nomenclature, a "little 'c' catholic" would be synonymous with being a "little 'o' orthodox".
If one put a big, bold line down the center of the Christian world, dividing it up based on these fundamental components of the gospel taught, on one side you would have the more catholic and orthodox traditions: the Catholic church, the Orthodox churches, some Anglican groups, etc. On the other would be the Protestants. In this conception, the Church of Christ would clearly be on the catholic side of the line.
As would early Christianity, the Bible, the Apostles, and Christ Himself. There is no other place the Church of Christ should ever be. As lies do not save, and those who teach a different gospel from the Apostles -- even an Angel from heaven -- is accursed and condemned.
None of this is to say that the Church of Christ is perfect in either belief or practice. There are a lot of things I have trouble with that I am working to change -- outgrowths of our basic belief system, and implications of it all (especially in the realm of leadership and authority and more general, all-encompassing, universal unity) -- and some of these things ARE a bit controversial at times. But none of that changes this fundamental gospel we preach.
Can I hold these things I've taught and be a member of this church without hypocrisy? You betcha. In fact, one could not be a member of this movement and NOT hold these things without severe cognitive dissonance.
posted by Christian Husband at 7:23 AM
7 Comments:
Thanks for this, XH; I really do appreciate it.
I knew next-to-nothing about the Church of Christ and its history, or its theology, before now. So thanks for 'enlightening' me on that account.
My intent has never been to pick quarrels with you on this-or-that point of Catholic theology. And, following my Church in the Second Vatican Council, I'm happy to call you my brother in Christ.
I confess, tho, that as much as I've been around various and sundry 'Protestant' circles in the course of my life, I've never come across anyone who held quite the set of 'commitments' that you do. A gap in my experience, no doubt. But at least now I have some understanding of where you're coming from, and why I might never have come across it before (or if I did, I didn't know what I was seeing. . .)
So, thanks.
Like Desmond, I do appreciate this as well. Because of my own lack of knowledge about CoC, I had no primary background. I have no idea why you would be so evasive about it. Unless there's more to it.
I had my post ready, in anycase, as these are issues too important not to be answered. Out gunned in background or no, there needs to be answer. I decided to go for it no matter if you answered my questions or not.
But it'll be in a minute or two, because I do feel the need to temper my original hyperbole just a tad. For whatever reason, I just needed to know.
D.
Hey, XH, thanks for writing this and for your previous five posts.
I've learned a lot from you these past couple years, but one of the more happy things I've learned is how very similar many of our core beliefs are.
I do have one question, though. Since your beliefs are so similar to the orthodox, why did the founders of the Church of Christ form a new community instead of joining that one?
The original Stone-Campbell movement started right about the same time as the American Revolution, when there weren't any Greek Orthodox in America. There also weren't any Catholics (or, not openly, since it was illegal). Their world was a completely Protestant world, and that is the context they operated in.
Besides, they didn't set out to create something near identical to the Orthodox church. It was just that, as they studied the truth, they ended up in a very orthodox place. Because, we believe, the truth is not hidden or hard to see if one cares to find it.
So, it was only later at the end of the process that we looked over and saw the Orthodox church as something we could relate to.
I'm not sure about the legal status us Catholics in revolutionary and pre-revolutionary America in general, but I do know that the colony of Maryland was founded as a 'Catholic colony' - a partial solution, if you will, to the British 'Catholic problem'.
Maryland was started as a Catholic colony, but not long after it was founded the Anglicans took it over, kicked out the Catholics, and outlawed Catholicism just like the other rest of the colonies. It wasn't until years after the revolution that Catholicism was made legal anywhere in the US.
Christian Husband is rather too kind with the C of C and too lite with Orthodoxy.
Stone/Campbell would not recognize the doctrine of divination by virtue of the incarnation, the theology of orders (bishop, priest, deacon), the doctrine of the presence of Christ in communion (not transubstantiation as popularly known, but certainly not memorialization or just "standing by as a good friend" either), celibacy for bishops, monasticism, the socio-psychological and theological importance of chrismation, ordination, anointing, etc.
While Orthodoxy would understand exclusion of women from the priesthood, the reasoning is build on a traditionalist theology of representing Christ not on a nineteenth century literalist reading of Pauline epistles.
Thomas Campbell, far from deploring sectarianism, participated in the multiple splits of Scottish Presbyterianism there and here, and Alexander continued the practice by refusing pentecostalists until Barton Stone calmed down enough to listen to reason.
The Church of Christ is a Second Great Awakening byproduct with a eighteenth century philosophy of Reason and Reading.
As for grape juice, words cannot express the mystery emptying metaphor of Welches.
Sorry to be so harsh, but the given essay was so glossy as to remind me of the pamphlets of my childhood. Yes, I grew up in the C of C: never swimming with the girls, never dancing, never playing cards, or watching movies. Except we all did when we were not at church. And our parents, so dedicated to taking us to church three times a week, gave us the money to do so.
Post a Comment
<< Home